This case was last updated from San Francisco County Superior Courts on 04/11/2016 at 17:20:40 (UTC).

JIM KEHOE VS. MICHAEL O'BRIEN

Case Summary

On 05/22/2012 JIM KEHOE filed a Contract - Business Governance lawsuit against MICHAEL O'BRIEN. This case was filed in San Francisco County Superior Courts, Civic Center Courthouse located in San Francisco, California. The case status is Not Classified By Court.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0986

  • Filing Date:

    05/22/2012

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business Governance

  • Court:

    San Francisco County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Civic Center Courthouse

  • County, State:

    San Francisco, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Appellants and Cross Defendants

KEHOE, JIM

KEHOE, JOHN

PETRIN, MARY

ROES 1-20, INCLUSIVE

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

O'BRIEN, JOE AN INDIVIDUAL

DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE

O'BRIEN, JOE

O'BRIEN, MICHAEL

O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL

ROES 1-10, INCLUSIVE

Other

KASOLAS,CPA, MICHAEL

San Francisco, CA 94104

Defendant and Defendant / Cross Appellant

O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Appellant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

OLSEN, HOWARD

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL HEATH

3251 Steiner Street

San Francisco, CA 94123

HEATH, MICHAEL

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL HEATH

3251 Steiner Street

San Francisco, CA 94123

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Defendant / Cross Appellant Attorneys

WIEGEL, ANDREW J.

Attorney at WIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLC

414 Gough Street

San Francisco, CA 94102-4464

PATRICK, G RYAN

414 Gough St

San Francisco, CA 94102

 

Court Documents

Order Continuing Case Management Conference

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OF NOV-28-2012 CONTINUED TO MAR-27-2013 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610 FOR PLAINTIFF TO OBTAIN DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT(S). NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

THE COURT ORDERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT ENTERED: IT IS ADJUDGED THAT PLAINTIFF KEHOE, JIM KEHOE, JOHN PETRIN, MARY TAKE NOTHING FROM DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, JOE AN INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT IS AWARDED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT JOE O'BRIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFFS JIM KEHOE, JOHN KEHOE AND MARY PETRIN ON EVERY CLAIM ALLEGED IN PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT. AS PREVAILING PARTY, DEFENDANT JOE O'BRIEN IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER PREVAILING PARTY COSTS

GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (CCP 1013A(4)) OF JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT JOE O'BRIEN.

Declaration Of Ryan G. Patrick In Support Of Ex Parte Application For

DECLARATION OF RYAN G. PATRICK IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SIGNATURE & ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MICHAEL OBRIEN (TRANSACTION ID # 15214070) FILED BY DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL

Ex Parte Application For Signature & Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR SIGNATURE & ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MICHAEL OBRIEN (TRANSACTION ID # 15214070) FILED BY DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL (Fee:60.00)

Memorandum Of Points & Authorities In Support Of Ex Parte Applicat

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SIGNATURE & ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MICHAEL O&BRIEN (TRANSACTION ID # 15214070) FILED BY DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL

COURT JUDGMENT - GENERAL

THE COURT ORDERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT ENTERED: IT IS ADJUDGED THAT DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL RECOVER FROM PLAINTIFF KEHOE, JIM KEHOE, JOHN PETRIN, MARY $12,000.00 PRINCIPAL, TOTAL JUDGMENT $12,000.00, (SEE SCANNED DOC)

Notice Of Entry Of Judgment Or Order

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 15216037)

Proof Of Service

PROOF OF SERVICE (TRANSACTION ID # 15225041) FILED BY DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL O'BRIEN, JOE AN INDIVIDUAL

DECLARATION

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FILED BY PLAINTIFF KEHOE, JIM

ORDER

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ORDER

ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE.

Memorandum of Costs for Def. Joe OBrien

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS, $27,454.39 TOTAL COSTS, MATURE DATE APR-23-2015,, (TRANSACTION ID # 57049890) FILED BY DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL O'BRIEN, JOE AN INDIVIDUAL

Declaration Of G. Ryan Patrick In Support Of Defendants Opposition To

DECLARATION OF OF G. RYAN PATRICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO TAX COSTS (TRANSACTION ID # 15277082) FILED BY DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL O'BRIEN, JOE AN INDIVIDUAL

ORDER

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO TAX COSTS

Notice Designating Record on Appeal with Reporters Waiver of Deposit

REQUEST FOR CLERK'S/REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (TRANSACTION ID # 58091796) FILED BY APPELLANT KEHOE, JOHN PETRIN, MARY

NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY CROSS-APPELLANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL (Fee:100.00)

CLERK'S ESTIMATE OF COST OF APPEAL RECORD

CLERK'S ESTIMATE OF COST OF APPEAL RECORD SENT TO CROSS-APPELLANT, ESTIMATED COST $323.00

98 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/11/2016
  • APPEAL RECORD CERTIFIED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL - ONE RECORD W/ APPEAL (CROSS-APPEAL FILED 10/30/15, A146553 DIV 2)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2016
  • APPEAL RECORD CERTIFIED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL - 1 VOL CT, 8 VOLS RT (APPEAL FILED 10/1/15, A146553 DIV 2)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • CORRECTED DIRECTORY NOTICE TO REPORTER TO PREPARE TRANSCRIPT PURSUANT TO DECLARATION (APPEAL FILED 10/01/2015: TAMARA WILLIT)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • COSTS OF PREPARATION ON APPEAL DEPOSITED (TRANSACTION ID # 16031018) BY CROSS-APPELLANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL (Fee:323.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • COSTS OF PREPARATION ON APPEAL DEPOSITED (TRANSACTION ID # 58435376) BY APPELLANT KEHOE, JIM KEHOE, JOHN PETRIN, MARY (Fee:323.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • CLERK'S ESTIMATE OF COST OF APPEAL RECORD SENT TO APPELLANT, ESTIMATED COST $323.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • CLERK'S ESTIMATE OF COST OF APPEAL RECORD SENT TO CROSS-APPELLANT, ESTIMATED COST $323.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • NOTICE TO REPORTER TO PREPARE TRANSCRIPT -DEPOSIT (BRENDA CROW) [CROSS-APPEAL FILED 10/30/15]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • FEE TO COVER TRIAL COURT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ADMINISTERING TRUST ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT OF REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT COSTS IN CIVIL APPEALS (CRC 8.130(B)(1); GC 70632) (Fee:50.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • REQUEST FOR CLERK'S/REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, TRAN # R8715C09A001, TAG # 033725 (TRANSACTION ID # 15341075) FILED BY CROSS-APPELLANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL (Fee:1625.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
171 More Docket Entries
  • 09/04/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2012
  • LAW AND MOTION 302, PLAINTIFF JIM KEHOE'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BEING RE-FILED IF IT IS SUPPORTED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. THE MOTION IS NOT NOW SUPPORTED BY ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND THUS MUST BE SUMMARILY DENIED ON THAT GROUND ALONE. ORDER SIGNED AFTER HEARING. JUDGE: HAROLD KAHN, CLERK: LESLEY FISCELLA, REPORTER: LAVENA WARD, CSR #7077.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • OPPOSITION TO DEFT'S MTN FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED BY DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL O'BRIEN, JOE AN INDIVIDUAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL O'BRIEN, JOE AN INDIVIDUAL (Fee:900.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT, PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF KEHOE, JIM KEHOE, JOHN PETRIN, MARY SERVED JUL-13-2012, PERSONAL SERVICE ON DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FILED BY PLAINTIFF KEHOE, JIM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FILED BY PLAINTIFF KEHOE, JIM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • MTN FOR PRELIM INJUNCTION FILED BY PLAINTIFF KEHOE, JIM HEARING SET FOR SEP-04-2012 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 302 (Fee:40.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • PARTNERSHIP AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF KEHOE, JIM KEHOE, JOHN PETRIN, MARY AS TO DEFENDANT O'BRIEN, MICHAEL AN INDIVIDUAL O'BRIEN, JOE AN INDIVIDUAL DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCT-24-2012 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON JUL-23-2012 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON OCT-09-2012 (Fee:410.00)

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL HEATH

Michael Heath SBN #196747

P.O. Box 616

Novato, CA 94948-0616 \

3251 Steiner Street San Francisco County Superior Court San Francisco, Ca. 94123

Telephone: (415) 931-4207 AUG 11 2014 Fax (415) 931-4117 |

Attorney for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL DIVISION

IM KEHOE, JOHN KEHOE, MARY PETRIN, ) CASE NO. CGC-12-520986 ) Plaintiff, ) TRIAL BRIEF RE: CROSS COMPLAINT FOR

) CONVERSION

) ) Date: 08/04/2014 MICHAEL O’BRIEN, an individual; JOE ) Time: 9:30 AM. O’BRIEN, an individual; and Does 1-10, ) Dept.: 206 inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) )

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Plaintiffs JIM KEHOE, JOHN KEHOE, and MARY PETRIN, hereby offer this TRIAL BRIEF RE:

CROSS COMPLAINT FOR CONVERSION PARTIES

1. JIM KEHOE (“JIM”), JOHN KEHOE (“JOHN"), and MARY PETRIN (“MARY") are the

Plaintiffs in this matter and are represented by Howard Olsen. JIM, JOHN, and MARY shall

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS

The parties to this action operated hauling business as a general partnership for a number of years. Among other things, the partners had the regular practice of signing one another’s names and/or authorizing their office support staff to complete transactions, including the transfer to motor vehicles.

On or about May 26, 2009, PLAINTIFFS became aware that MICHAEL had changed his bank account so that it was no longer accessible by the other partners or by the Partnership’s support staff. PLAINTIFFS also became aware that MICHAEL had changed his mailing address.

PLAINTIFFS demanded an explanation from MICHAEL. MICHAEL replied that he was no longer interested in operating with the Partnership. He stated that he preferred to divide up the partnership property and accounts. The parties agreed that they should start dividing the trailers that the partners owned, and put off dividing the truck cabs and power units until later. MICHAEL stated to JIM “go ahead and take whatever you want” of the trailers. MICHAEL also authorized JIM to sign his name to title documents on 12 trailers.

On or around August 1, 2009, the parties entered into an ag’reefnent to exchange some assets. The agreement was brokered by David Condon (CONDON), who had worked for the partners for several years. Through CONDON, MICHAEL offered to provide to PLAINTIFFS twelve trailers in exchange for two tractor cabs. PLAINTIFF S agreed to this. PLAINTIFFS also agreed to allow

On or around August 1, 2009, the parties entered into an ag’reefnent to exchange some assets. The agreement was brokered by David Condon (CONDON), who had worked for the partners for several years. Through CONDON, MICHAEL offered to provide to PLAINTIFFS twelve trailers in exchange for two tractor cabs. PLAINTIFF S agreed to this. PLAINTIFFS also agreed to allow MICHAEL to use theers for a period of time but MICHARbreed to have them returned to PLAINTIFFS by no later than June 1, 2010. (parenthetically, in March 2009, JIM and JOHN had spent approximately $34,000 putting brand new tires on to the trailers).

MICHAEL to use theers for a period of time but MICHARbreed to have them returned to PLAINTIFFS by no later than June 1, 2010. (parenthetically, in March 2009, JIM and JOHN had spent approximately $34,000 putting brand new tires on to the trailers).

Pursuant to this, on or around July 15, 2009, PLAINTIFFS delivered the two tractor cabs to MICHAEL. PLAINTIFFS also signed the title documents over to DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFFS also transferred a number of phone numbers to DEFENDANTS.

However, DEFENDANTS retained the trailers to themselves and did not return them to PLAINTIFFS. To the best of PLAINTIFFS’ knowledge, DEFENDANTS remain in possession of the trailers. On or about July 16‘, 2010, MICHAEL attempted to lien sale the trailers to himself at the Pier 96 yard. One of the trailers was worth approximately $250,000, but DEFENDANTS represented that the trailer was worth $4,000 so that they could be below the limit the DMV set for lien sales. | PLAINTIFFS filed objections, and the sale was canceled.

After the lien sale incident, PLAINTIFFS became very concerned that DEFENDANTS_would never return the trailers to them. In or around Ndvember 2010,7J IM traveled to the storage areas where the trailers were located and removed the trailers.

On or around 11/08/2010, JIM and JOHN were appro‘ached by investigators for the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The investigators stated that they had received a report that JIM and JOHN had stolen the trailers from DEFENDANTS. The investigators threatened to arrest JIM and JOHN. JIM and JOHN explained what had happened: that they had been partners with thé complainants, that they had a deal to trade tractors for trailers, that MICHAEL had told »them they could remove the trailers. The investigators left without arresting JIM or JOHN. No criminal charges were ever filed. However, the trailers were ordered returned to DEFENDANTS.

DEFENDANTS have alleged that he lost $600,000 as a result of the alleged theft of some trailers. The Kehoes are not aware that defendant has produced any evidence of having incurred this expense. Defendant Michael O'Brien stated to Mary Petrin that he had not lost any business as a result of the alleged loss of trailers. ,

DEFENDANTS have alleged that he lost $600,000 as a result of the alleged theft of some trailers. The Kehoes are not aware that defendant has produced any evidence of having incurred this expense. Defendant Michael O'Brien stated to Mary Petrin that he had not lost any business as a result of the alleged loss of trailers. , DEFENDANRgg)ave alleged that plaintiffs Jim and Joiglehoe forged documents with the DMV in an effort to re-title certain vehicles from defendants to plaintiffs. To begin, these allegations were already the subject of a DMV investigation that did not result in the filing of any charges. Second, the trailers that were the subject of the investigation were paid for by the Kehoes, but' retained by the defendants, even after the parties had agreed to a division of assets that would have resulted in defendant turning the disputed trailers over to the Kehoes. Finally, DEFENDANTS have themselves engaged in similar acts including their attempted lien sale of vehicles titled in the Kehoes' name, and their retaining construction equipment belonging to third parties.

DEFENDANRgg)ave alleged that plaintiffs Jim and Joiglehoe forged documents with the DMV in an effort to re-title certain vehicles from defendants to plaintiffs. To begin, these allegations were already the subject of a DMV investigation that did not result in the filing of any charges. Second, the trailers that were the subject of the investigation were paid for by the Kehoes, but' retained by the defendants, even after the parties had agreed to a division of assets that would have resulted in defendant turning the disputed trailers over to the Kehoes. Finally, DEFENDANTS have themselves engaged in similar acts including their attempted lien sale of vehicles titled in the Kehoes' name, and their retaining construction equipment belonging to third parties.

DISCUSSION

I. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT LIABLE TO DEFENDANTS FOR CONVERSION |

BECAUSE DEFENDANTS CONSENTED TO THE REMOVAL OF THE TRAILERS

DEFENDANTS’ claim for conversion fails for a basic reason: they consented to PLAINTIFFS’ taking possession of the disputed trailers. On or around August 1, 2010, the parties entered into an agreement to exchange some assets. The a'greement was brokered by David Condon (CONDON), who had worked for the partners for several years. Through CONDON, MICHAEL offered to prOvide to PLAINTIFFS twelve trailers in exchange for two tractor cabs. The proposed equipment was of roughly the same value. PLAINTIFFS agreed to this. PLAINTIFFS also agreed to allow MICHAEL to use the trailers for one year, but expected to have them returned to them by no later than August 1, 2010.

Pursuant to this, PLAINTIFFS delivered the two tractor cabs to MICHAEL. PLAINTIFFS also signed the title documents over to DEFENDANTS. |

However, DEFENDANTS retained the trailers to themselvles and did not return them to

PLAINTIFFS. To the best of PLAINTIFFS’ knowledge, DEFENDANTS femain in possession of the trailers. On or about July 16, 2010, MICHAEL attempted to lien sale the trailers to himself at the Pier 96 yard. One of the trai»lers was worth épproximately $250,000, but DEFENDANTS represented that

PLAINTIFFS. To the best of PLAINTIFFS’ knowledge, DEFENDANTS femain in possession of the trailers. On or about July 16, 2010, MICHAEL attempted to lien sale the trailers to himself at the Pier 96 yard. One of the trai»lers was worth épproximately $250,000, but DEFENDANTS represented that the trailer was worth €300 so that they could be belowlien sales. PLAINTIFFS filed objections, and the sale was canceled.

the trailer was worth €300 so that they could be belowlien sales. PLAINTIFFS filed objections, and the sale was canceled.

- After the lien sale incident, PLAINTIFFS became very concerned that DEFENDANTS would never return the trailers to them. In or-around November 2010, JIM traveled to the storage areas where the trailers were located and removed the trailers.

DEFENDANTS thus consented to PLAINTIFFS taking possession of the trailers. DEFENDANTS’ claim for conversion thus fails on that ground.

II. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT LIABLE TO DEFENDANTS BECAUSE DEFENDANTS

UNREASONABLY DELAYED MAKING THEIR CONVERSION CLAIM AND IT

IS THUS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES.

Laches is neglect or failure on the part of a plaintiff in the assertion of a right that, when taken in conjunction with a more or less lengthy period of time, and also in connection with other circumstances prejudicial to the defendant, will operate as a bar in equity to the successful maintenancevof the plaintiff's cause of action. Columbia Engiheering Co. v Joiner (1965) 231 Cal App.2d 837, 857

The court should deny DEFENDANTS claim on the ground that they unreasonably delayed bringing their conversion claim. They slept on their rights and thereby lost them. |

The normal statute of limitations on a conversion claim is three years for tangible prbperty (CCP 338(c)). The statute begins to run on the date the alleged wrongful taking occurred, even if the

injured person is ignorant of his rights. Bennett v Hibernia Bank (1956) 47 Cal.2d 540, 561.

In thls case, JIM and JOHN acknowledge that they removed the trailers from DEFENDANTS’ possession in or around November 2010. This lawsuit was filed on May 22, 2012. DEFENDANTS did not cross complain for conversion when they initially answered the complaint. Rather, they waited until September 2013 to make a motion to amend to add a cross complaint that included the conversion claim. Had they filed their claim on that date as a stand-alone lawsuit, it would have nearly been barred by the statute of limitations. Indeed, at least with regard to the alleged forgmg of DMV title transfers, which DEFENDANTS allege occurred in the summer of 2012, the

In thls case, JIM and JOHN acknowledge that they removed the trailers from DEFENDANTS’ possession in or around November 2010. This lawsuit was filed on May 22, 2012. DEFENDANTS did not cross complain for conversion when they initially answered the complaint. Rather, they waited until September 2013 to make a motion to amend to add a cross complaint that included the conversion claim. Had they filed their claim on that date as a stand-alone lawsuit, it would have nearly been barred by the statute of limitations. Indeed, at least with regard to the alleged forgmg of DMV title transfers, which DEFENDANTS allege occurred in the summer of 2012, the objection; if court dirs taint or fraud, it will of its own md. & institute investigation]; Katz v.

objection; if court dirs taint or fraud, it will of its own md. & institute investigation]; Katz v.

Karisson (1948) 84 C.A.2d 469, 473. [“If the record shows upon its face that the mbving party ... has instituted a proceeding or motion with unclean hands, it is the duty of a reviewing court ih the interes of justice to determine the propriety of the judgment”];

Unclean hands is an equitable doctrine which provides that a wrong-doer may not profit from his own wrong doing. The circumstances of this case, not just on the immediate issue of the twelve trailers, but in the overall dispute between the parties, are such that DEFENDANTS are quintessentia objects of unclean hands.

On the issue of the trailers, the parties entered into an agreement to exchange some asséts. The agreement was brokered by David Condon (CONDON), who had worked for the partners for several years. Through CONDON, MICHAEL offered to provide to PLAINTIFFS twelvé trailers in exchange for two tractor cabs. The proposed equipment was of roughly the same value. PLAINTIFFS agreed to this. PLAINTIFFS also agreed to allow MICHAEL to use the trailers for one year, but expected to have them returned to them by no later than August 1, 2010,

Pursuant to this, PLAINTIFFS delivered the two tractor cabs to MICHAEL. PLAINTIFFS also signed the title documents over to DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANTS néver performed their obligations. They never returned the trailers, nor did they ever transfer ownership of the trailers as they had promised. On or about July 16, 2010, MICHAEL even attempted to lien sale the trailers to himself at the Pier 96 yard. PLAINTIFFS filed objections, and the sale was canceled.

On the overall dissolution of the partnership, DEFENDANTS have also engaged in significan wrong-doing. They have retained assets that PLAINTIFFS helped pay for. They benefited from years of work and support by PLANITIFFS. Among other things, DEFENDANTS barely had to make payroll as PLAINTIFFS spent over a million dollars per year paying all of the partners’ employees. DEFENDANTS also left PLAINTIFFS with a number of partnership obligations and told creditors to look to PLAINTIFFS for payment. | |

On the overall dissolution of the partnership, DEFENDANTS have also engaged in significan wrong-doing. They have retained assets that PLAINTIFFS helped pay for. They benefited from years of work and support by PLANITIFFS. Among other things, DEFENDANTS barely had to make payroll as PLAINTIFFS spent over a million dollars per year paying all of the partners’ employees. DEFENDANTS also left PLAINTIFFS with a number of partnership obligations and told creditors to look to PLAINTIFFS for payment. | | doing at the expense of PLAINTIFFS. They should not be allowed to benefit from this wrong-doing.

doing at the expense of PLAINTIFFS. They should not be allowed to benefit from this wrong-doing.

@ us have benefitted from, and are ben¥yg